Expand
Collapse

Expand
Collapse

In the majority opinion, they discussed the claim that the charges were past the statute of limitations. After some legaleze, they concluded that since the age of the boy in the shower was thought to be 10-12 years old (of course, the boy that has never been officially identified in order to know how old he was) that this meant he didn't turn 18 until X year, which meant the statute of limitations didn't expire.

I mean how can a superior court judge use the age of an unknown person who was seen for a few seconds by a shaky witness to make a decision?

Expand
Collapse

He can either request to have the case re-decided by the full Superior Court (and, given that it was a 2-1 decision against him, he has a decent shot of having it go en banc) or he can appeal directly to the PA Supreme Court.

Given how the rest of Spanier’s legal defense has played out, we’re likely looking at a hearing before the full Superior Court.

Expand
Collapse

He can either request to have the case re-decided by the full Superior Court (and, given that it was a 2-1 decision against him, he has a decent shot of having it go en banc) or he can appeal directly to the PA Supreme Court.

Given how the rest of Spanier’s legal defense has played out, we’re likely looking at a hearing before the full Superior Court.

Expand
Collapse

In the majority opinion, they discussed the claim that the charges were past the statute of limitations. After some legaleze, they concluded that since the age of the boy in the shower was thought to be 10-12 years old (of course, the boy that has never been officially identified in order to know how old he was) that this meant he didn't turn 18 until X year, which meant the statute of limitations didn't expire.

I mean how can a superior court judge use the age of an unknown person who was seen for a few seconds by a shaky witness to make a decision?

Click to expand...

I think the only evidence/testimony presented at trial was the boy was 10-12.

Spanier could have presented a defense which could have (at the very least) offered something that could be used to dispute that ... But if I recall, his team rested.

There's a lot going on here & we probably don't know the important parts.

Appeal courts generally, as I understand it, consider only what was presented at trial.

Later, a PCRA can address new evidence & facts that weren't available at trial. As far I know, there are no new facts regarding V2 that wouldn't have been available & known to him at trial.

The one exception is if the incident date moves further into the past, as some have suggested. But that doesn't really help Spanier because it only makes the presumed V2 even younger & closer to the 10-12 range.

Expand
Collapse

He can either request to have the case re-decided by the full Superior Court (and, given that it was a 2-1 decision against him, he has a decent shot of having it go en banc) or he can appeal directly to the PA Supreme Court.

Given how the rest of Spanier’s legal defense has played out, we’re likely looking at a hearing before the full Superior Court.

Expand
Collapse

Ray makes no sense. He acknowledges that McQueary did not get a good look at the incident. He admits that the incident may have occurred prior to Feb 9th and that McQueary waited much longer than just one day to tell Paterno. But then claims Jerry Sandusky is continually lying about the boy being Allan Myers even though Myers has turned on Sandusky, but the so-called “real victim 2”, if he exists, has apparently not turned on Sandusky. Myers has also never claimed that he was wrongly pressured into coming forward as the boy in the shower, and was the only claimant paid by PSU as “victim 2”

Gold Member

Expand
Collapse

Ray makes no sense. He acknowledges that McQueary did not get a get look at the alleged incident. He admits that the incident may have occurred prior to Feb 9th and the McQueary waited much longer than just one day to tell Paterno. But then claims Jerry Sandusky is continually lying about the boy being Allan Myers even though Myers has turned on Sandusky, but the so-called “real victim 2”, if he exists, has apparently not turned on Sandusky. Myers has also never claimed that he was wrongly pressured into coming forward as the boy in the shower, and was the only claimant paid by PSU as “victim 2”

Click to expand...

No one has been able to explain how AM knew about the slamming of the wooden locker door before that went public.

Expand
Collapse

100% Ray didn't want to be seen as outing a victim. Though he did all the research that led Zig to AM.

So when Zig "accidentally" let AM's name slip out in a nationally promoted release on framingpaterno, Ray had to discalim that AM=V2.

Emails posted on Zig's site prove all of this.

I don't care for Zig, but he's at least honest when he states facts. (He doesn't about a lot of of things, he hedges, or says "I believe" - which is him stating an opinion, not stating a fact. When he states a FACT, it's always right. I give him that.

Expand
Collapse

I get that, but Amendola would have had access to everything at that point, wouldn't he? All testimony. And that's where the interview took place. Even if not, certainly Jerry knew about the Locker door & was in contact with AM prior to AM's interview with Amendola's investigator.

Gold Member

Expand
Collapse

I get that, but Amendola would have had access to everything at that point, wouldn't he? All testimony. And that's where the interview took place. Even if not, certainly Jerry knew about the Locker door & was in contact with AM prior to AM's interview with Amendola's investigator.

Click to expand...

Amendola didn't have anything four days after the GJP was released. Jerry didn't expect to be charged for the V2 incident. Even if he and AM had a plan for AM to come forward, a wooden locker door slamming from ten years earlier was part of the plan? MM supposedly never mentioned that detail until Eschbach inadvertently outed him in the GJP.

Expand
Collapse

100% Ray didn't want to be seen as outing a victim. Though he did all the research that led Zig to AM.

So when Zig "accidentally" let AM's name slip out in a nationally promoted release on framingpaterno, Ray had to discalim that AM=V2.

Emails posted on Zig's site prove all of this.

I don't care for Zig, but he's at least honest when he states facts. (He doesn't about a lot of of things, he hedges, or says "I believe" - which is him stating an opinion, not stating a fact. When he states a FACT, it's always right. I give him that.

Click to expand...

Zig learned who “victim 2” was based on the description Sandusky provided during his prison interview.

Expand
Collapse

Amendola didn't have anything four days after the GJP was released. Jerry didn't expect to be charged for the V2 incident. Even if he and AM had a plan for AM to come forward, a wooden locker door slamming from ten years earlier was part of the plan? MM supposedly never mentioned that detail until Eschbach inadvertently outed him in the GJP.

Click to expand...

Not to mention, Even after Myers turned on Sandusky, he still never claimed Sandusky forced him or pressured him into providing the statement to Amendola/Everhart exonerating Sandusky.

Expand
Collapse

Ziegler already knew Myers was “Victim 2”, Blehar had just found a picture/article of Myers showing how much he supported Sandusky a year after the “shower incident”

Click to expand...

Then why in the emails does JZ say stuff like "Are you sure?"

Whatever. I don't care about their fight. And it has almost nothing to do with this Spanier topic. By his trial Spanier had tons of evidence tending towards V2=AM & didn't use any of it, and now, it bites him in the butt because he cannot establish that the statute of limitations ran out, at least he can't based on what was produced at trial. And even in a PCRA, this wouldn't be considered "new evidence" because it was well known by his trial.

At the best he can argue attorney incompetence, but I'm sure that his team talked through all this (they had years to do so, unlike Jerry) and that said decision is well documented.

Expand
Collapse

A statute of limitations whose date was determined by the assumed age of an unknown victim.

Click to expand...

I thought he was convicted of a crime he couldnt have committed. For example you are guilty of A if and only if B is true. Well it was proved B was untrue so he couldnt be convicted of A. or is B, the 'statue of limitations' thing in this case? tia

Expand
Collapse

A statute of limitations whose date was determined by the assumed age of a young man who does not fit the prosecution's pre-conceived narrative.

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

The PA OAG had 6 years and near unlimited resources to determine this boy's identity. Finding him and having him testify to abuse would have been the only way to have the felony charges stick against not only Spanier, but also Curley and Schultz. There were also only about 2 or 3 young men who had any one on one contact with Sandusky during that time period. I can't believe some people see the theory that there is still someone "unknown rape victim" out there as anything other than laughable.

Expand
Collapse

So it sounds like he didn't win his appeal based on the statute of limitations... but what about the fact that he didn't commit the crime? Did he not think to work that angle too?!?!?

Click to expand...

The only theory that makes any sense whatsoever is that Spanier's attorney is afraid of being blackballed by the PA legal community (prosecutors, judges, etc.) if he gives any validity to John Ziegler's findings.

Expand
Collapse

Whatever. I don't care about their fight. And it has almost nothing to do with this Spanier topic. By his trial Spanier had tons of evidence tending towards V2=AM & didn't use any of it, and now, it bites him in the butt because he cannot establish that the statute of limitations ran out, at least he can't based on what was produced at trial. And even in a PCRA, this wouldn't be considered "new evidence" because it was well known by his trial.

At the best he can argue attorney incompetence, but I'm sure that his team talked through all this (they had years to do so, unlike Jerry) and that said decision is well documented.

Click to expand...

I do think V5's statement in his claim against PSU that contradicted his trial testimony would certainly qualify as "new evidence".

Also, where exactly does JZ state "Are you sure?" to RB with regards to the identity of V2? JZ admits that he came to believe in Sandusky's innocence largely through Ray's work, but I do not see any evidence of Ray determining the identity of V2 before Zig.